SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jayaram vs State By Kamakshipalya Police on 27 May, 2014

Karnataka High Court Jayaram vs State By Kamakshipalya Police on 27 May, 2014Author: B.Manohar

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2239 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

1. JAYARAM

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA

2. GOWRAMMA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

W/O. JAYARAM

3. NAVEEN KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

S/O. JAYARAM

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

No.396, 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS

BEHIND NANDAGOKULA SCHOOL

KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 079 . .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI:RAJASHEKAR, B.G.ADVOCATE) AND

STATE BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BANGALORE

BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE … RESPONDENT (BY SRI:K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

-2-

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.93/2014 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime No.93/2014 registered by the Kamakshipalya Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Radha.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Vijayakumar – brother of the deceased Radha, the Kamakshipalya police have registered a case in Cr.No.93/2014 for the offences punishable under -3-

Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant’s sister – deceased Radha was married to Ullas on 7.12.2007 and they got a male issue out of their wed-lock. Due to demand of dowry, physical and mental torture given by the petitioners, the deceased Radha committed suicide by hanging herself. Hence, the petitioners are responsible for the death of Radha and sought for taking action in accordance with law.

3. On the apprehension of arrest, on the basis of the complaint lodged by Vijayakumar, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail. It was contended that they are innocents of the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in the case and false case was registered against them, as such they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners are permanent residents of Kamakshipalya, Bangalore -4-

and they got their own house. The marriage has taken place in the year 2007. The deceased Radha committed suicide after 07 years of her marriage. There was no complaint with regard to demand of dowry at any point of time prior to the incident. Hence, sought for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent contended that due to the physical and mental harassment given by the petitioners, the deceased Radha was forced to commit suicide. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records and also the order dated -5-

25.3.2014 made in Crl.Misc.No.1601/2014 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

6. The petitioner No.1 is the retired NGEF employee, petitioner No.2 is his wife and petitioner No.3 is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In the complaint, it was alleged that due to the harassment with regard to demand of dowry, the deceased Radha committed suicide on 08.03.2014. Except that allegation, no other materials have been produced to show that the petitioners were given ill-treatment and demanded dowry from the parents of deceased Radha. The post mortem report discloses that except injury over the neck, no other injuries are found on the body of the deceased. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioners, they are entitled for anticipatory bail. Apart from that the wife of the 3rd petitioner – Smt. Mamatha has already been enlarged on bail in -6-

Crl.Misc.No.1601/2014. Hence, these petitioners are also entitled for bail.

7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

The petition is allowed. The respondent – police are hereby directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.93/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the likesum subject to following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Court regularly.

2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness.

3. The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigation Officer during the Course of Investigation.

-7-

4. The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Bangalore City without prior permission from the Jurisdictional Court. Sd/-

JUDGE

HJ*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation